Starmer: Almost no-one is talking about trans issues

[SidewaysOtter]

To quote from the rolling news section of this morning's Times:

"Almost no Britons are “talking about trans issues,” Sir Keir Starmer has said as he questioned why such issues are a focus of political debate.

The Labour leader sought to win over gender critical campaigners and MPs at the weekend, telling The Sunday Times there would be “no rolling back” of women’s rights if the party formed a government.

Speaking to LBC this morning he repeated his position that “for the vast majority — let’s say 99.9 per cent — biology matters” in defining a woman. He said that Labour was trying to agree a “common sense, respectable and tolerant position”, but that it was “not prepared to ignore” the small number of people who identify as a different gender to the one they were born in.

He insisted it was a marginal issue for many voters, however. “As we go around the country campaigning, I talk to thousands and thousands and thousands of people. They want to talk to me about the cost of living crisis, about the fact they can’t pay their bills, they want to know what they’re going to do about their council tax,” he said.

“Almost nobody is talking about trans issues. I do sometimes just wonder why on earth we spend so much of our time discussing something which isn’t a feature of the dinner table or the kitchen table or the café table or the bar.”

Funny, because I think there's quite a lot of people talking about "trans issues". Whether it's the treatment of Posie Parker and the 72-year-old woman who were violently assaulted last weekend, male-bodied people in women's sports/changing rooms/hospital wards/prisons, the medicalisation/mutilation of young adults, or the vilification of those who speak The Terrible Heresy that you cannot change your biological sex. And yes, we're talking about it at the dinner table, the café bar or wherever.

"No rolling back of women's rights" doesn't mean shit if you count men as women, Mr Starmer. And you can wang on about "respect and tolerance" all you like but we know what you really mean by that is wanting us to be quiet and stop being awkward. That isn't going to happen.

But you do have a tendency not to engage with content when people pick you up on certain points - instead resorting to laughing emojis, name calling, or suggestions that people are 'right wing'. So I don't think it is fair at all for you to suggest that people are not open to debate or discussion, when you do this.

Yes the problem imo is once this kind of tactic stalls there’s a lack of coherence and the arguments don’t stack up.

women already 'compromise' by allowing very young males (boys) into female facilities. So there you go Adam, you can stop trying to force women to erode their boundaries now and we can all get on with the job of telling men that it's their problem to accommodate males of all varieties.

Trouble is @AdamRyan you have, whether you meant to or not, set yourself up as a spokesperson for Labour. You continually bang the drum for voting Labour, you tell us that Labour have got it all in hand re the EqA, and they clearly haven't, even your own preferences re the EqA and GRA are not, and I doubt will ever be, Labour Party Policy but you will vote for them knowing this and knowing the impact their current policy has on women and girls and harangue others who won't.

You know that Labour will not and have no intention of doing what the majority of posters on this Board want regarding the EqA and GRA and you are virulent in your condemnation of anything Tory and anyone who dares to say they will vote for them due to Labour's stance on GI. You dismiss anyone saying that Labour's policy re GI is dubious at best.

I'm sorry, but where is this majority view written down as being evidenced?

All I've seen is a lot of polls which reveal that many women are under the impression that transwomen using female spaces have been somehow checked for whether they are a risk to women and are post surgery.

When it's spelt out that this isn't the case, you get totally different results.

And that highlights a lot of the problem - women can't give consent if they don't fully understand what they are consenting to and it's very easy to fudge the results on surveys of this nature by the question you ask.

I don't believe there is a majority view at all.

Labour advocates do seem to use majority argument and no one cares a lot

I don’t think that’s right. The polls ask about ‘trans issues’

I don’t care about those, but I do very much care about women’s rights

Regardless I am happy to put it all to the test in a vote.

Mumsnet is very good at allowing debate. I have never ever hated or been against trans people. As a teenager in the 1970s I even read books about them.

What I do object to is misrepresentation of what the Equality Act 2010 says ie misrepresentation of facts and I think everyone should try to be kind to everyone else but the bottom line is half the 67m of the UK are of the female sex and if they are damaged or statistics wrongly skewed or they are not allowed to give a view because of a very tiny minority then that is a major issue.

Got it.

Women's privacy dignity and safety is not 'like Brexit'. Neither is it something that should be decided on an individual basis by democracy!

It's basic rights for women to participate as equals to men.

If men stopped raping us, assaulting us, and subjecting us to sexism and misogyny, then maybe I might feel differently about giving them a vote as to whether or not they're allowed in my space.

But good to know, that even when women say no to men, you think it should be subject to some kind of vote.

How galling to read that the poster telling us off for being right wing I fact just blindly follows the politics of their favoured party at the time!
Was a lib dem supporter at the tin of brexit so no idea what labour policies were then.

How on earth can you support any party if you don't know all parties policies in order to choose?

You misunderstand me..

I do think that a male attending a lesbian dating session is a problem and very well probably poses a threat.

it was an example where I wondered if Adam thought that it didn’t pose a threat to women safety or dignity. I was interested in hearing whether Adam thought it was or was not a situation where women’s safety or dignity was being threatened. Don’t think I got an answer to that though.

I think what Adam is saying here is that where there are a variety of views in a society on the correct way forward with the law or policy or even social norms, it is almost inevitably the case that few, or no one, will be satisfied.

So as long as there remains a situation where there are several viewpoints about gender ideology, there is a good chance no one will be totally satisfied with the legal outcomes. Some will certainly be dissatisfied.

It doesn’t need to be women impacted

The GRA is a poorly thought out law with repercussions that we can see mount up up year on year.

Time to accept the mistake and change the law

Happy to vote on it.

@TempestTost I'm with Marsha.

There might be a wide variety of views. But where the impact of legislation, whether that be intended or an unintended consequence, is the harm of women, particularly the most vulnerable of women, then it is hard to argue in a fair society that it is a compromise position to continue with laws that cause this harm to women. There are issues with a full repeal of the GRA but an amendment to the EquA could be made to protect women. It won't be easy because there will be push back from groups which don't think that women matter as much as the tiny minority of males, but the fact that issues are unpalatable to lobby groups who don't much care about women's rights for reasons is not a reason not to make changes.

There is no evidence that making spaces single sex would result in harm to the minority of males who are using them. The purpose of the legislation that was introduced that has resulted in harms to women was not to keep these males safe it was a fudge for allowing gay marriage, which is no longer relevant. If harm is a concern then it is still not appropriate to make women the human shields against such harm. There are other options, men could act better towards each other generally and then there are third spaces as an option.

The Equality Act already, rightly, has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment which prevents discrimination of trans people in respect of housing, employment and healthcare. Harassment is already covered by law as is other criminal activity which could harm anyone in society.

The fact is, and drawing back to the title of the thread, no one really wants women to talk about women's rights, the easiest way to silence this is to frame it as trans rights, a niche issue, only impacts a tiny number, you're a bigot etc etc.

Yes.

No, that really isn't the point. It's not ideological as such, it's practical.

If a society is really divided on any topic, you will see policy positions either reflect some kind of compromise, or try to create room for individuals to hold their own views, or reflect some kind of middle position.

In a democracy you won't tend to see a clear, unified policy approach until there is a certain amount of social cohesion around the topic. It's not just about numbers either but groups or sometimes certain sectors in society.

If we want a to repeal the GRA, you basically have to convince a lot of people it's a good idea.

Tbf the image of Isla Bryson is more convincing than words

Fine by me.

I’d take a vote on either repeal or if more likely to get through biological sex in the EqA

Interestingly Starmer's predecessor Corbyn appeared on the same platform as trade union activist Helen O'Connor giving a full blown left wing defence of women's rights on Saturday.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5006439-helen-oconnor-defends-womens-rights-at-morning-star-conference

What is sad is that if the GRA hadn’t been brought in more or less secretly, there might have been a consultation and objections in the first place.

Plus the consequences of the Denton's report. A group of men pushing changes in society that they know will have a negative impact, so they deliberately keep them hidden from democratic scrutiny.

There has been a deliberate and concerted effort to bring in trans related legislation 'under the radar'. This was explicitly written down by at least one organisation.

Why? Why go to such lengths and feel you need to? It certainly doesn't suggest public consent or public awareness does it?

Anyone completed the mumsnet political survery that has no question about womens rights and no option to write it in? Deny people any opportunity to discuss it and then claim no-one is talking about it. Well I emailed Starmer (and of course got no reply) so I know he's lying.

Oh ffs!

I think Starmer sees concerned women as 'no one'.

If you're concerned, you're a bigot.

Bigots aren't worth talking to. They're nobodies.

So nobody is concerned.

That seems to be the logic.

Interesting that Labour has dropped in the polls. It's being put down to the Rochdale mess and the green policy U-turn. But I find it interesting it's also happened in the week following Starmer's crass PMQ observation re: women's rights. Obviously Rishi did not emerge covered in glory from that encounter either, and the economy has just gone into recession again, so the Tories aren't in any place to punish Labour on this. But you do wonder how much scrutiny Starmer's views on women's rights will withstand before the election.

But you do wonder how much scrutiny Starmer's views on women's rights will withstand before the election.

There are definitely posters on these threads who want to shut down conversation. The same names come up time and time again.

We must keep talking.

Yes, there was a lot of stealth, so legal changes were made before the public could really form educated opinions. That's caused real trouble. And was deliberate. It's not just a GI thing though, it's the way most lobbies now work.

GI was really heavily sold to a certain sector of the public, as if it was a known quantity. And a surprising number (or maybe not surprising) simply accepted it, and the idea that any questions or opposition came out of a kind of bigotry.

I don't think it can really be understood apart from identity politics generally. These are the same people who think any deviation from id pol positions is bigotry.

We are where we are now though, in so far as there is a sector of society that strongly believes that basic rights includes legal recognition of gender identity, which is a real scientific thing.

And it's important to say - GC ideas have been defended, in the law and morally, as something people are allowed to believe and express, regardless of whether they are correct, because we live in a pluralistic society where people can have their own views, and they can also be part of the political process in terms of policy decisions.

But that kind of argument only works if you accept that it works both ways. If no one believed GI was correct it wouldn't be an issue. But they do and want policy to reflect that. It's part of the political process to hash out what that should look like, but not shut them out. Even if they were fooled by bad actors with nefarious motives.

Lobbying by special interest groups is a big problem for our kind of government, IMO.